My name is Ben Hutchison and I am a video producer/motion graphics designer here at the University of Cincinnati. I was born and raised here in the Cincinnati area. I have been married for eight years to my wife Emily who is a teacher in Norwood. We have 2 daughters, Ruby, who is almost 3, and Gertie who is 18 months old. I am interested in technology if it is beneficial to the learning process.
websites I frequent:
vimeo.com
this is a great video site with a clean design and creative original content
If you can afford it, lynda.com could become your tech best friend.
Blog Entry 1
In reading the articles for the first week of class, I was both surprised and overwhelmed by the concepts of objectivism and constructivism in terms of learning objectives when creating instructional design. Though it is simplistic of me to assume, I never thought about these different cognitive theories when it came to instruction. But, after reading these articles, I can see how important and significant they could be to using technology tools in the classroom.
Jonassen’s article laid out the psychological framework for the argument between the different theories of objectivism and constructivism. Objectivism seems based on the idea that there are solid hard facts out there that everyone can learn equally. Constructivist theory takes into account individuals perception of reality as the place where learning occurs. Jonassen indicates that at the time, Objectivism permeated the creation of instructional design and that constructivist ideas either should be integrated or inevitably would be integrated into instructional design (Jonassen, 1991, p.12).
Cronje’s article took the position that the two theories became diluted when making them dualistic perspectives and felt viewing them on a 90 degree axis created a more comprehensive perspective of how the two theories could be implemented. He showed research on using his axis to evaluate instructional design and concluded that it was a useful tool but needed more refinement.
I thought the ideas presented in these two articles where fascinating. There is definitely an old school versus new school vibe going on between these two theories. As an instructional designer this becomes an interesting argument as to how to create instruction. I had client recently who wanted to take a questionnaire that she created for her class and make it an online tool. The difficulty I found in doing this put me at the crossroads between these two theories. On the worksheet, the instructor asked open questions that forced the student to come up with their own written explanation of what they saw in an illustration. But in the online version, the written explanation was going to be replaced by multiple choice questions or fill in the blank questions. Even though I didn’t have any knowledge of these two theories, I felt wrong in what I felt was oversimplifying the learning process for the student. But now that I know of these theories, I can see that the instructor created a constructivist question and by retooling it and making it multiple choice, I was turning it into an objectivist question. How fascinating!
In looking over the two articles, I feel both authors make convincing arguments. Constructivism has just as much validity as objectivism and being dogmatic to either theory is limiting. I felt Conje made a great point by visualizing the spectrum between objectivism and constructivism to demonstrate that being in the middle really just means you aren’t employing either solution (Conje, 2006, p.388). I felt he was on the right path in creating 2 dimensions but agree with Reeve’s idea that a 3 dimensional chart could really show how the two theories can merge (Conje, 2006, p.403). I think that both theories are valid and must be kept in mind when making instruction. I feel that constructivist approaches to instructional design will be more challenging to create as it becomes even more prevalent in teaching.
2 questions
Do constructivist teaching methods lead to complacent learners?
Do constructivist and objectivist methods move back and forth in waves?
References
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Blog Entry 2
This weeks articles by Anderson and Chaika dealt with the problem of only having one computer in the classroom and then different strategies for how to best use your limited resources. Both authors emphasized planning as an essential part of keeping a one-computer classroom organized. Anderson brings up a good point that students need to understand how to use a search engine properly in order to find the information in a timely manner (Anderson, pg.2).
Working at the University in UCIT, it is easy to forget that younger students often have limited access to computers at home or in the classroom. I take for granted the tools that are available to me and to the college students here on campus. My wife, who is an elementary school teacher, used the station strategy to allow her students equal time on the computer while her other students worked on other activities. Beyond the limitations of available computers, I think limiting the use of computers as a sole resource is important for students to learn. Though the Internet has a lot of information, there are always aspects of work and life that don’t pertain to technology.
Though I think the strategies that the writers came up with were good and helpful, I disagreed with their ideas about printing. I know that at my wife’s school, even printing is limited without the teachers dipping into their own pocket. It is true that printing is cheaper than buying a new computer but I would guess that most schools don’t get into printer vs. computer budgetary battles very often.
-- This is also a problem in higher education. I have one Computer Tools for Teachers class that UC could not find a computer lab for, so they are in a regular classroom and the instructor needs to deal with these same issues and be really creative about her teaching. - JZ
Questions
If you only had access to one computer in your classroom, would you use it yourself for teaching or allow the students to use it for learning?
Is a lesson on using the Internet appropriate use of teaching time?
Blog Entry 3 Fair Use and Copyright
Wow! What a fascinating subject! When I think of Fair Use, I always reflect on my elementary school education and the movies we'd watch during the various holiday seasons. On the last day before winter break, I remember watching Christmas movies and having parties. Ah the good old days before fear of being sued entered the classroom.
The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy tried to find what sort of information and misinformation was being employed in classrooms around the country about copyright and fair use. Though no general consensus was reached among the educators interviewed, the overriding conclusion made by the authors was that almost no one had a good understanding of copyright or fair use. The fear of retribution and the muddled nature of the topic led to educators and administrators stifling the use of media in the classroom in order to protect themselves. The authors concluded that there was a need for a code of practice in order to establish a legitimate base for fair use policies across all disciplines of education (pg.21).
The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education seems to be the response the authors of the Cost of Copyright were looking for. This document tries to give a definitive answer to what is fair use and what is not in the classroom. The authors address many of the concerns that most educators would have about fair use for them as educators as well as for their students. They end the document by listing a series of myths that attempt to override ideas and policies that most educators run into in their local districts. The authors state the importance of media in the classroom and argue for its place in schools (MEDIA LITERACY EDUCATION).
Working with professors here at UC, we often ran into copyright and fair use issues when it came to videos. Many professors would want to digitize an entire movie or would post an entire movie in their Blackboard account and our group would have to address the issue with them. If they wanted to use a video, our policy was that they needed to get permission in order for us to put them on our servers. Though I think at times some of the professors would have been under fair use, I still think it was a safe bet for us to not post entire films on our servers. The code of best practices noted that educators and students should attempt to use precisely the amount of media they needed in order to do whatever project they were working on. I think in many cases where professors wanted to post entire movies it was because they wanted the process to be simple and they didn't want to have to make specific clips for their class. On the other hand, those professors that tried to upload their content onto the servers themselves seemed to follow the logic of security by obscurity. If other people didn't know it was there than no one would even need to bother questioning if it were fair use or not. Though I don't fully agree with this idea, I totally understand where educators would rather skirt the issue because of all the negativity and heavy handedness that is brought on by administrators.
I found both articles to be well written and valid in their arguments. Though I found copyright confusion to be frustrating because they never came to a solution to the problem, I came to realize that the point of their piece was that there was a huge problem that was out there that wasn't being addressed. The Code of Best Practices was a perfect companion piece because it addressed the frustration I had with the previous article. I appreciated the broad group of signatories and legal advisers to validate their claims and give a sense of authority to what they were presenting.
Questions
Now that you have a better understanding of Fair Use, do you feel this will affect how you will use media in your classroom in the future?
The Code of Best Practices attempts to override the judgements and policies of local administrations. Do you think you would use fair use media even if it went against your local school policy?
Blog Entry 4
The articles this week focused on how teachers have used web collaborative tools in the past and how instructors can use tools like blogs in their classroom. The Rosen/Nelson article focused on web 2.0 tools and brought up legitimate conserns for how instructors should use these tools in the future. The Ikpeze/Boyd article focused on research they conducted on using webquests in the classroom to enhance learning. The Wang/Hsua article focused on blogs and how they could be used in the classroom.
In my world, web 2.0 tools are becoming more prevelant in the classroom. Professors are either willing or being forced to use technology to keep up to date or to facilitate distance learning. I think that the questions brought up by Rosen/Nelson about the lack of Faculty 2.0 and how they can create education 2.0 is on the minds of most professors here at UC (pg.222). Being in an instructional design department, it can be hard to wade through the massive amounts of web 2.0 tools and figure out which ones are good and which ones are crap. I think there is a tendancy to want to meet students where they are at. Places like Facebook and Second Life are being invaded by schools and I don't think this is where they should be and I think the fault can be placed on the lack of faculty 2.0 education and guidance. There are so many cool tools that are out there and if there aren't it is much easier to build proper tools. I hope as an instructional designer I can help learners navigate through technology and come up with a solid curriculum for good web 2.0 tools.
I think all the different articles were valid and presented good solid work on the parts of the writers. I liked that one article was research based, one was suggestive on how to use blogs, and one was more of an open ended question about the future of web 2.0 in the classroom. I think the research that Ikpeze/Boyd conducted was a good ID model for how to investigate the usefulness of web 2.0 tools. I think it is critical to research tools within the framework of ID because it is easy to get caught up in the fun and stimulating aspects of technology and then not have a proper pedegogical background for what you are working on.
What web 2.0 tool do you think will eventually be a flash in the pan?
Do you feel you need to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to technology in your classroom?
Blog 5
The focus on this weeks articles were on gaming and more specifically justifying gaming as effective tools in teaching. In Hong's article, the author came up with a fairly comprehensive strategy for evaluating educational value of games. His team used focus groups that included both educators and designers to come up with a good evaluation system and then used their ideas to assess a game. Sardone's article was also based on research but focused on getting future educators interested in gaming so that they would end up using it in the classroom.
Gaming is a slippery slope to me. Both of these authors do a good job in researching and justifying the validity of gaming in the classroom. In my experience here at UC, I find that this sort of research is lacking when it comes to use of games or game design. For a short while, I worked with a fellow staff member who was in charge of UC's presence in second life. She showed us how to navigate through the world, how to dress our avatars, and showed us the growing UC "campus" in this gaming world. While the work they were doing was impressive, the justification seemed to be more based on the cool factor than a research based justification for jumping on board with this platform. In other cases, I've found that many professors have the same attitudinal hangups that Sardone mentions in her article (pg.411). While she mentions fears such as assistance with implementation as a generic category of resistance to gaming, the motivations to not use games is a real problem for professors. Many times, professors feel they don't have time or the proper support to use games in the classrooms. Also, if they are tenure track, I think there is an added fear of doing work that won't qualify towards their tenure.
While both these articles were based on really good and interesting research, I felt that some of their justification was a little weak. In Hong's article, he references Piaget and his theory on gaming (pg.424). Though some could argue that all games are the same, I think that gaming in the 21st century is very different from what Piaget was looking at when he came up with this theory. In Sardone's article, she mentioned the possible link between gaming and higher IQ levels within the past few decades. This really stood out to me for some reason. It makes me think back to the classic justification for gaming that it gives good hand eye coordination. While gaming probably does help with hand eye coordination, I don't think that it is or was a good enough justification for the importance of gaming. I question how much gaming has to do with higher IQs and wonder if it has more to do with a general influx of technology within the past few decades.
My biggest beef with both of research articles is the impracticality of researching gaming when it gets to the level of the school teacher. Sardone gave a group of games to her students. That is great for them but most teachers wouldn't have that opportunity. In Hong's article, their group of researchers conducted extensive research and came up with 74 different indices! 74! Most teachers wouldn't have time to cross reference 10 different indices let alone 74! Don't get me wrong, I think gaming has a place in the classroom. I just know that there are many crappy games that a teacher would have to wade through in order to get something worth using.
questions
In the age of the app and tablets, do you think teachers will be more encouraged to use games in the classroom?
Do you feel your studies in college have prepared you to integrate technologies like games in your classroom?
My name is Ben Hutchison and I am a video producer/motion graphics designer here at the University of Cincinnati. I was born and raised here in the Cincinnati area. I have been married for eight years to my wife Emily who is a teacher in Norwood. We have 2 daughters, Ruby, who is almost 3, and Gertie who is 18 months old. I am interested in technology if it is beneficial to the learning process.
websites I frequent:
vimeo.com
this is a great video site with a clean design and creative original content
tutsplus.com
a great relatively free way of learning techniques in various visual programs
lynda.com
If you can afford it, lynda.com could become your tech best friend.
Blog Entry 1
In reading the articles for the first week of class, I was both surprised and overwhelmed by the concepts of objectivism and constructivism in terms of learning objectives when creating instructional design. Though it is simplistic of me to assume, I never thought about these different cognitive theories when it came to instruction. But, after reading these articles, I can see how important and significant they could be to using technology tools in the classroom.
Jonassen’s article laid out the psychological framework for the argument between the different theories of objectivism and constructivism. Objectivism seems based on the idea that there are solid hard facts out there that everyone can learn equally. Constructivist theory takes into account individuals perception of reality as the place where learning occurs. Jonassen indicates that at the time, Objectivism permeated the creation of instructional design and that constructivist ideas either should be integrated or inevitably would be integrated into instructional design (Jonassen, 1991, p.12).
Cronje’s article took the position that the two theories became diluted when making them dualistic perspectives and felt viewing them on a 90 degree axis created a more comprehensive perspective of how the two theories could be implemented. He showed research on using his axis to evaluate instructional design and concluded that it was a useful tool but needed more refinement.
I thought the ideas presented in these two articles where fascinating. There is definitely an old school versus new school vibe going on between these two theories. As an instructional designer this becomes an interesting argument as to how to create instruction. I had client recently who wanted to take a questionnaire that she created for her class and make it an online tool. The difficulty I found in doing this put me at the crossroads between these two theories. On the worksheet, the instructor asked open questions that forced the student to come up with their own written explanation of what they saw in an illustration. But in the online version, the written explanation was going to be replaced by multiple choice questions or fill in the blank questions. Even though I didn’t have any knowledge of these two theories, I felt wrong in what I felt was oversimplifying the learning process for the student. But now that I know of these theories, I can see that the instructor created a constructivist question and by retooling it and making it multiple choice, I was turning it into an objectivist question. How fascinating!
In looking over the two articles, I feel both authors make convincing arguments. Constructivism has just as much validity as objectivism and being dogmatic to either theory is limiting. I felt Conje made a great point by visualizing the spectrum between objectivism and constructivism to demonstrate that being in the middle really just means you aren’t employing either solution (Conje, 2006, p.388). I felt he was on the right path in creating 2 dimensions but agree with Reeve’s idea that a 3 dimensional chart could really show how the two theories can merge (Conje, 2006, p.403). I think that both theories are valid and must be kept in mind when making instruction. I feel that constructivist approaches to instructional design will be more challenging to create as it becomes even more prevalent in teaching.
2 questions
Do constructivist teaching methods lead to complacent learners?
Do constructivist and objectivist methods move back and forth in waves?
References
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Blog Entry 2
This weeks articles by Anderson and Chaika dealt with the problem of only having one computer in the classroom and then different strategies for how to best use your limited resources. Both authors emphasized planning as an essential part of keeping a one-computer classroom organized. Anderson brings up a good point that students need to understand how to use a search engine properly in order to find the information in a timely manner (Anderson, pg.2).
Working at the University in UCIT, it is easy to forget that younger students often have limited access to computers at home or in the classroom. I take for granted the tools that are available to me and to the college students here on campus. My wife, who is an elementary school teacher, used the station strategy to allow her students equal time on the computer while her other students worked on other activities. Beyond the limitations of available computers, I think limiting the use of computers as a sole resource is important for students to learn. Though the Internet has a lot of information, there are always aspects of work and life that don’t pertain to technology.
Though I think the strategies that the writers came up with were good and helpful, I disagreed with their ideas about printing. I know that at my wife’s school, even printing is limited without the teachers dipping into their own pocket. It is true that printing is cheaper than buying a new computer but I would guess that most schools don’t get into printer vs. computer budgetary battles very often.
-- This is also a problem in higher education. I have one Computer Tools for Teachers class that UC could not find a computer lab for, so they are in a regular classroom and the instructor needs to deal with these same issues and be really creative about her teaching. - JZ
Questions
If you only had access to one computer in your classroom, would you use it yourself for teaching or allow the students to use it for learning?
Is a lesson on using the Internet appropriate use of teaching time?
Blog Entry 3 Fair Use and Copyright
Wow! What a fascinating subject! When I think of Fair Use, I always reflect on my elementary school education and the movies we'd watch during the various holiday seasons. On the last day before winter break, I remember watching Christmas movies and having parties. Ah the good old days before fear of being sued entered the classroom.
The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy tried to find what sort of information and misinformation was being employed in classrooms around the country about copyright and fair use. Though no general consensus was reached among the educators interviewed, the overriding conclusion made by the authors was that almost no one had a good understanding of copyright or fair use. The fear of retribution and the muddled nature of the topic led to educators and administrators stifling the use of media in the classroom in order to protect themselves. The authors concluded that there was a need for a code of practice in order to establish a legitimate base for fair use policies across all disciplines of education (pg.21).
The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education seems to be the response the authors of the Cost of Copyright were looking for. This document tries to give a definitive answer to what is fair use and what is not in the classroom. The authors address many of the concerns that most educators would have about fair use for them as educators as well as for their students. They end the document by listing a series of myths that attempt to override ideas and policies that most educators run into in their local districts. The authors state the importance of media in the classroom and argue for its place in schools (MEDIA LITERACY EDUCATION).
Working with professors here at UC, we often ran into copyright and fair use issues when it came to videos. Many professors would want to digitize an entire movie or would post an entire movie in their Blackboard account and our group would have to address the issue with them. If they wanted to use a video, our policy was that they needed to get permission in order for us to put them on our servers. Though I think at times some of the professors would have been under fair use, I still think it was a safe bet for us to not post entire films on our servers. The code of best practices noted that educators and students should attempt to use precisely the amount of media they needed in order to do whatever project they were working on. I think in many cases where professors wanted to post entire movies it was because they wanted the process to be simple and they didn't want to have to make specific clips for their class. On the other hand, those professors that tried to upload their content onto the servers themselves seemed to follow the logic of security by obscurity. If other people didn't know it was there than no one would even need to bother questioning if it were fair use or not. Though I don't fully agree with this idea, I totally understand where educators would rather skirt the issue because of all the negativity and heavy handedness that is brought on by administrators.
I found both articles to be well written and valid in their arguments. Though I found copyright confusion to be frustrating because they never came to a solution to the problem, I came to realize that the point of their piece was that there was a huge problem that was out there that wasn't being addressed. The Code of Best Practices was a perfect companion piece because it addressed the frustration I had with the previous article. I appreciated the broad group of signatories and legal advisers to validate their claims and give a sense of authority to what they were presenting.
Questions
Now that you have a better understanding of Fair Use, do you feel this will affect how you will use media in your classroom in the future?
The Code of Best Practices attempts to override the judgements and policies of local administrations. Do you think you would use fair use media even if it went against your local school policy?
Blog Entry 4
The articles this week focused on how teachers have used web collaborative tools in the past and how instructors can use tools like blogs in their classroom. The Rosen/Nelson article focused on web 2.0 tools and brought up legitimate conserns for how instructors should use these tools in the future. The Ikpeze/Boyd article focused on research they conducted on using webquests in the classroom to enhance learning. The Wang/Hsua article focused on blogs and how they could be used in the classroom.
In my world, web 2.0 tools are becoming more prevelant in the classroom. Professors are either willing or being forced to use technology to keep up to date or to facilitate distance learning. I think that the questions brought up by Rosen/Nelson about the lack of Faculty 2.0 and how they can create education 2.0 is on the minds of most professors here at UC (pg.222). Being in an instructional design department, it can be hard to wade through the massive amounts of web 2.0 tools and figure out which ones are good and which ones are crap. I think there is a tendancy to want to meet students where they are at. Places like Facebook and Second Life are being invaded by schools and I don't think this is where they should be and I think the fault can be placed on the lack of faculty 2.0 education and guidance. There are so many cool tools that are out there and if there aren't it is much easier to build proper tools. I hope as an instructional designer I can help learners navigate through technology and come up with a solid curriculum for good web 2.0 tools.
I think all the different articles were valid and presented good solid work on the parts of the writers. I liked that one article was research based, one was suggestive on how to use blogs, and one was more of an open ended question about the future of web 2.0 in the classroom. I think the research that Ikpeze/Boyd conducted was a good ID model for how to investigate the usefulness of web 2.0 tools. I think it is critical to research tools within the framework of ID because it is easy to get caught up in the fun and stimulating aspects of technology and then not have a proper pedegogical background for what you are working on.
What web 2.0 tool do you think will eventually be a flash in the pan?
Do you feel you need to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to technology in your classroom?
Blog 5
The focus on this weeks articles were on gaming and more specifically justifying gaming as effective tools in teaching. In Hong's article, the author came up with a fairly comprehensive strategy for evaluating educational value of games. His team used focus groups that included both educators and designers to come up with a good evaluation system and then used their ideas to assess a game. Sardone's article was also based on research but focused on getting future educators interested in gaming so that they would end up using it in the classroom.
Gaming is a slippery slope to me. Both of these authors do a good job in researching and justifying the validity of gaming in the classroom. In my experience here at UC, I find that this sort of research is lacking when it comes to use of games or game design. For a short while, I worked with a fellow staff member who was in charge of UC's presence in second life. She showed us how to navigate through the world, how to dress our avatars, and showed us the growing UC "campus" in this gaming world. While the work they were doing was impressive, the justification seemed to be more based on the cool factor than a research based justification for jumping on board with this platform. In other cases, I've found that many professors have the same attitudinal hangups that Sardone mentions in her article (pg.411). While she mentions fears such as assistance with implementation as a generic category of resistance to gaming, the motivations to not use games is a real problem for professors. Many times, professors feel they don't have time or the proper support to use games in the classrooms. Also, if they are tenure track, I think there is an added fear of doing work that won't qualify towards their tenure.
While both these articles were based on really good and interesting research, I felt that some of their justification was a little weak. In Hong's article, he references Piaget and his theory on gaming (pg.424). Though some could argue that all games are the same, I think that gaming in the 21st century is very different from what Piaget was looking at when he came up with this theory. In Sardone's article, she mentioned the possible link between gaming and higher IQ levels within the past few decades. This really stood out to me for some reason. It makes me think back to the classic justification for gaming that it gives good hand eye coordination. While gaming probably does help with hand eye coordination, I don't think that it is or was a good enough justification for the importance of gaming. I question how much gaming has to do with higher IQs and wonder if it has more to do with a general influx of technology within the past few decades.
My biggest beef with both of research articles is the impracticality of researching gaming when it gets to the level of the school teacher. Sardone gave a group of games to her students. That is great for them but most teachers wouldn't have that opportunity. In Hong's article, their group of researchers conducted extensive research and came up with 74 different indices! 74! Most teachers wouldn't have time to cross reference 10 different indices let alone 74! Don't get me wrong, I think gaming has a place in the classroom. I just know that there are many crappy games that a teacher would have to wade through in order to get something worth using.
questions
In the age of the app and tablets, do you think teachers will be more encouraged to use games in the classroom?
Do you feel your studies in college have prepared you to integrate technologies like games in your classroom?